This is not a book review. I've not read this book, but I just heard about it and it seems interesting.
This is a non-fiction book that looks at the trend of women leaving the working world to raise children. It suggests to women that is a mistake primarily because of the question, what if things go wrong? The three main things that can go wrong are: 1) your husband dies, 2) you divorce your husband, 3) your husband loses his job. The book apparently suggests that it just does not make sense for a woman to lose her marketability and that, given the risks, it is actually not good for her kids.
In answer to what if, I propose: 1) have a good life insurance policy 2) don't leave your husband and 3) marry well :-) Actually, for 3), I've heard there are some old fashioned approaches to money management that will cover that possibility but I understand that it is no longer in vogue to have "savings", whatever they are.
It is really interesting how changes wrought by feminism have led to unexpected consequences. First (well, not actually first) women fought for the right to work so they could if they wanted. Then society changed so economics made it so two income families were desirable or even necessary so women lost some choice in the matter, they had to work. Then some fought for the ability to not work to be able to enjoy being mothers. Now this Author is suggesting that working is a requirement for any semblance of security.
Along with all the empowerment and equality issues all I can say is, what a mess. I am glad I am not a woman. Men have it much simpler though not necessarily easier. We don't have any choices here. Our role is fairly well defined by society. We work and support our families to the best of our abilities. Today, our wives might work too if we don't bring in enough and that is now alright. Anything less is generally looked down upon. It always has been and likely will be for a long time.
On the purely practical side, though, I would hate terribly to feel so dependent and, were I a woman, would appreciate the authors stated position completely. I am curious to see if the book has a political or practical agenda. Stay tuned...
Showing posts with label Book Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book Review. Show all posts
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
February 25 - "Next", Micahel Chrichton
Chrichton is slipping. He is counting on his notoriety and controversy to sell books. Like his last book, "State of Fear", "Next" is a cautionary tale. Unlike his "State of Fear", "Next" causes more chuckles than concern. For background, "State of Fear" warned us to be skeptical of global warming because it was being used as a tool by power elites to generate fear in the populace, making them susceptible to persuasion. "Next" warns us of how the application of genetics could threaten each of us.
Unfortunately the scenarios that Chrichton creates in his book come across as ludicrous more than scary. Because they seem so ridiculous, for instance, by positing that our right to be secure in our person would be trumped by a tenuous claim by a corporation of intellectual property right to our genetic material. Or, because the possibility seem so remote, such as a chimp/human hybrid actually being admitted to public school. Because of this, this book comes across as a humor punctuated sci-fi tale more than anything.
Again unfortunately, it isn't very good at that, either. The over all story is pretty good, but it is told with far to little literary meat. Not enough character development, not enough detail. It being based on science, not enough science, something Chrichton is usually better at. It is told as several separate but loosely connected stories that just wind up feeling disjoint. One winds up feeling like Chrichton, "phoned this one in," so to speak.
Chrichton does hit on how screwed up intellectual property law seems to be in this country. His focus on how it is being used in regard to biology, medicine and genetics was somewhat illuminating. However, it seems unlikely that this would have made much of an impact if one wasn't already concerned with some aspect or other of the topic.
Over all, I am not sorry I read the book. Despite it's failings, it was sufficiently entertaining to be worth the time spent reading it. I recommend waiting for the paperback or checking it out of the library.
Unfortunately the scenarios that Chrichton creates in his book come across as ludicrous more than scary. Because they seem so ridiculous, for instance, by positing that our right to be secure in our person would be trumped by a tenuous claim by a corporation of intellectual property right to our genetic material. Or, because the possibility seem so remote, such as a chimp/human hybrid actually being admitted to public school. Because of this, this book comes across as a humor punctuated sci-fi tale more than anything.
Again unfortunately, it isn't very good at that, either. The over all story is pretty good, but it is told with far to little literary meat. Not enough character development, not enough detail. It being based on science, not enough science, something Chrichton is usually better at. It is told as several separate but loosely connected stories that just wind up feeling disjoint. One winds up feeling like Chrichton, "phoned this one in," so to speak.
Chrichton does hit on how screwed up intellectual property law seems to be in this country. His focus on how it is being used in regard to biology, medicine and genetics was somewhat illuminating. However, it seems unlikely that this would have made much of an impact if one wasn't already concerned with some aspect or other of the topic.
Over all, I am not sorry I read the book. Despite it's failings, it was sufficiently entertaining to be worth the time spent reading it. I recommend waiting for the paperback or checking it out of the library.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
February 18 - Book Review Sunday, "Empire"
Starting today, I'm going to dedicate Sundays to short book reviews. Typically, my interests are technical, programming related books, science fiction, history and hard (science) fiction. On my nightstand, right now are "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, "Dreaming in Code" by Scott Rosenberg, "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond and "Off Armageddon Reef" by David Weber. Recently finished are "Next" by Michael Chrichton that I'll review next Sunday and "Empire" by Orson Scott Card that I'll review today.
Empire is a kind of science fiction that I categorize as future history. This is a kind of science fiction that tells the story of the future without fantastic devices (no light sabres, for instance) or, at worst with only logical technical extrapolation. Empire relies on no technical devices. It tells a story of how the U.S. political landscape shifts rapidly in the next few years. Card posits that, far from the decadent Rome that the U.S. is usually compared to, the U.S. is about to enter it's real imperial phase such as the vibrant, expanding Rome. He also suggests that for this to happen the fundamental governmental organization must change and tells a tale of how that happens through implicit rather than explicit means. The findamental shift is that the U.S places even more power in the executive, making the president something like a benevelent dictator.
Other implicit shifts in American government have similarly taken place without explicit legislation, most notably the shift from states primacy prior to the American Civil war to Federal Primacy afterwards. In this book a similar although much shorter event occurs (led by a George Soros type of character.) At the end, a desire for a return to normalcy combined with some deft political maneuvering results in both very divided parties independently desiring the same person in the executive position. What happens next is, I certainly hope, the subject of another book.
As anyone who has read 'Ender's Game" or 'Folk of the Fringe" knows, Orson Scott Card is a captivating writer whose prose is also very easy to read. If I were to criticise this book, I'd say it is a little light on detail. However, I've recently been reading Neil Stephenson, so have perhaps become accustomed to the other extreme. Politically, I'd say this book leans right of center. And it is a political book. This book is clearly intended to make people think about where the country is headed. On his website, Orson Scott Card describes himself as a former Democrat who moved to the center after seeing how the Democratic party responded after the September 11 attacks. Having read some of his articles on his website, I'd say he move right of center consistent with the feel I get from this book.
Though the end did not result in the U.S. returning to democratic roots, I'd say that it felt moderately positive. It left the possibility that such an outcome could be a good thing. Hopefully a sequel will settle the outcome, at least in Card's universe. I'll buy it.
Empire is a kind of science fiction that I categorize as future history. This is a kind of science fiction that tells the story of the future without fantastic devices (no light sabres, for instance) or, at worst with only logical technical extrapolation. Empire relies on no technical devices. It tells a story of how the U.S. political landscape shifts rapidly in the next few years. Card posits that, far from the decadent Rome that the U.S. is usually compared to, the U.S. is about to enter it's real imperial phase such as the vibrant, expanding Rome. He also suggests that for this to happen the fundamental governmental organization must change and tells a tale of how that happens through implicit rather than explicit means. The findamental shift is that the U.S places even more power in the executive, making the president something like a benevelent dictator.
Other implicit shifts in American government have similarly taken place without explicit legislation, most notably the shift from states primacy prior to the American Civil war to Federal Primacy afterwards. In this book a similar although much shorter event occurs (led by a George Soros type of character.) At the end, a desire for a return to normalcy combined with some deft political maneuvering results in both very divided parties independently desiring the same person in the executive position. What happens next is, I certainly hope, the subject of another book.
As anyone who has read 'Ender's Game" or 'Folk of the Fringe" knows, Orson Scott Card is a captivating writer whose prose is also very easy to read. If I were to criticise this book, I'd say it is a little light on detail. However, I've recently been reading Neil Stephenson, so have perhaps become accustomed to the other extreme. Politically, I'd say this book leans right of center. And it is a political book. This book is clearly intended to make people think about where the country is headed. On his website, Orson Scott Card describes himself as a former Democrat who moved to the center after seeing how the Democratic party responded after the September 11 attacks. Having read some of his articles on his website, I'd say he move right of center consistent with the feel I get from this book.
Though the end did not result in the U.S. returning to democratic roots, I'd say that it felt moderately positive. It left the possibility that such an outcome could be a good thing. Hopefully a sequel will settle the outcome, at least in Card's universe. I'll buy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
